Well, he never explicitly said he was a member of the NWO conspiracy nut's fan club, but his words say it pretty plainly:
First: he posts the same message typical of Cold War Red Scare paranoia towards socialism, claiming Obama is about to bring socialism on the US.
I reply (paraphrased): chances are you don't know the first thing about socialism, and you automatically associate it with pure communism.
He replies, direct quote:
Actually the people on here talking about socialism are college students and grads, educated people. And socialism is a step towards communism. According to Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto, communism occurs when socialism matures.
In reply, I explain to him the concept of mixed economies and the political movement known as social democracy, which exists alongside democracy and a free market, but with some element of government influence to eliminate the negative effects of capitalism while retaining its benefits, while listing some other general ideological viewpoints of social democracy, such as promoting democracy abroad in a diplomatic fashion. I also explain to him if he needs to be worried about totalitarianism, he should review the policies of the Bush administration before he understands expanding government influence.
He replies:
"social democracy" is a huge step towards pure socialism. and you said promotion of democracy overseas? haha and what was bush doing? as for the patriot act and DHS, they were steps to do what the Constitution actually set up our government to do: protect us. furthermore, this isnt about bush. he made some big mistakes, no one here is taking up for them. bush's mistakes have nothing to do with obama's lack of qualifications, experience, and socialist views. socialism and "social democracy" are the complete opposite of what the founders/framers had in mind. even alexander hamilton and the federalists would have called this outrageous
I then ask him what's so terrible about social security for the crippled, unemployment benefits, universal health care, etc. and mention we have other ways to fund it other than shooting income taxes through the roof. At this point, I thought at first I was only dealing with a typical conservative, a paleoconservative or a conservative confused by the Republican Revolution and/or Bush administration's "conservatism."
He replies:
what's so terrible about it? where do i start? it's government control. it's the government controling your life. if u want the government to run you life, fine. don't force that control on me. and anything the gov't gets involved in fails. look at education. despite pouring millions into education, american children are still some of the dumbest when compared to other 1st world nations. the last thing we need to do is let them control more aspects of life. and social security is bankrupt! and no, we don't have the money. that's why our economy sucks. outrageous spending of money we don't have. did u foget about our $trillion debt? and again, bush has nothing to do with this. if u want to bash past president, i can do that all night. bush is gone. its old news he has no baring here. he's not the issue. it sounds like u have no argument without him
I agree with his point on education, pointing out his own distorted view of socialism as genuine proof of the failure of the education system. What I'm most irked by though, is that last part of the quote in bold, about the debt. He tells me to take the debt into consideration (which is actually six times higher than the number he gave me of only one trillion), but ignore the faults of the Bush administration, claiming this argument "isn't about him."
I reply by telling him our debt when through the roof under Bush, the only time the debt has ever decreased in the past 50 years was under a Democrat. I tell him you can't talk about the debt without talking about the past Presidents.
He replies:
hahaha this debt was accumulated over decades. and who did it start with? FDR
Now, I'm not an idiot. I know this, as I've read a history book. I again mention the expanded government under Bush, to which he replies:
there you go again, can't stay focused on the issue. obama is the issue. yes, they spent a lot. obama has already spent nearly as much and he's only been in office a couple months.
enjoy being one of the easily fooled and a loyal subject. ignorance is bliss
I tell him I'd rather have Obama spend money on economic recovery and social development programs than on illegal wars and record high defense spending.
Now, we have a side conversation going on here in addition to the budget debate. He gets started and claims the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act provided security against terrorism in the United States. I inform that international cooperation in Afghanistan the shattering of al-Qaeda abroad is what resulted in no domestic terrorism, not illegal legislation expanding police powers to the point of violating human liberties. I tell him he ought to go read a book on how terrorism works before spewing the same Rush Limbaugh propaganda about how we're "still not safe."
He replies:
haha im plenty educated. i was taught by people like Jim White, who have spent entire careers doing this stuff. police officers and homeland security experts.
and trust me, it doesnt take much money to strap a home made bomb to youself and run into a large crowd and blow yourself up. that's common sense. ur the one that needs an education not me. i was with impd/mcsd as a cadet for years. ive seen what people are capable of
and u want to talk about rights being taken away by bush? what about obama and all this talk about gun control? yes, the 2nd amendment does protect individual gun ownership. the supreme court just said so in a ruling. take away our ability to resist and we are subjects.
It's clear this guy doesn't understand a thing about terrorism, as he names a homeland security "expert" whose name I couldn't find related to homeland security in the first ten pages of Google (for reference, Googling "Richard Clarke" or "Richard Clark": first result is the Against All Enemies author, some would consider him a legit homeland security/anti-terror expert). He also claims his experience with the police department and listening to lectures about homeland security qualifies him as an expert on "what people are capable of."
I prepare a response to the 2nd Amendment bit, basically summarizing points from our own "Nation of Cowards" thread (you guys are really useful
). As soon as I click to post my response, ERROR. I figure out the guy banned me from responding to his post.
In my stead, he puts up another post:
those rights should be extended to US citizens only. who cares if we lock up people who want to kill us and throw away the key? i guess ur one of the brilliant people who think we should free them and put them on welfare. let's pay them to try to kill us. and, again, your arguement about firearm ownership is very ignorant. ur president wants to be a dictator. he wants to create a national civilian security force with just as much power as the military. what's that sound like? Hitler's SS. o and let me add that Hitler was also a socialist and implemented gun control right before he took over. have fun giving peace a chance and living in ur fantasy world
Now, I'm livid. I decide to send him a private message:
Funny, you never bothered to actually check the context of that national security service bit did you? Because if you did, you must be a ****ing moron or you're terrified of the guys who collect cans out in the park. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
Because AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, and the Foreign Service are the organizations he's going to expand. For reference, since you don't seem to have a ****ing clue otherwise, those are the people that work with the Red Cross, help people around the world, and man our embassies abroad, respectively. The only other places I find noteworthy mention of this program is in the same paranoid right-wing blogs that promote Alex Jones' bull**** and the like. Oh, before you go questioning my knowledge of international Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and its activity, just thought you'd like to know I'm a month away from holding an AA in Arabic, with Middle East studies being a huge requirement for it. So really, I understand where terrorism comes from, the conditions it thrives in, and how it's fought. Also, I'm in the Air Force's Arabic language intelligence department. I hear things everyday which get classified at a level beyond any clearance you'll ever have.
But clearly your experience as a cadet with the Indianapolis police department makes you an expert on international relations and terrorist organizations. Much more so then somebody directly fighting it, such as me. So, where's the al-Qaeda terror cells in Indiana? I buried one of my bootmates earlier this month who was killed in Afghanistan by terrorists, not by the same gun-toting insane individuals you claim have a right to own assault rifles, because they alone will somehow defend us against the overbearing US government and its expansive community outreach programs under President Obama! My God, you sound just like Richard Poplawski! If you don't know who that is, maybe you ought to Google it and look at what happens when paranoid nuts are allowed to get their hands on assault rifles.
So how about getting your head out of your ass, reading a real book about international terrorism, and getting out of your goddamn tinfoil hat conspiracy world and joining the rest of us who have a damn clue on how the world works? Or how about at least getting your information from someone NOT affiliated with NWO conspiracies or the right-wing blogosphere? It might help!
He has yet to respond.
I always knew these guys existed, but I never thought I'd have a real live chat with one.
